Ok, outside the controversies of evolution and gay marriage, I, as a linguist did some comparing between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. I ask anyone to compare the two presentations on, say, the Spanish language. In Conservapedia I was presented with two or three exrtemely sketchy paragraphs obviously written by someone who knows what the Spanish language IS, without the benefit of knowing the Spanish language. How about Wikipedia, where, guess what?; the author is someone who actually speaks Spanish as well as being thouroughly versed in its history and varieties. I was not impressed (Conservapedia) with sniffy lines like "it is easier for English speakers to learn Spanish, than vice versa" Oh really? And where are the facts, figures and statistics that back that one up? I have a few that would clearly suggest the contrary, not to mention that I've met very few native English speakers who are true masters of Spanish. With all due respect, I will continue to use Wikipedia if I need answers. And if so chose to do resarch on "arcane British monarchs" at least I know that Wikipedia will address the issue, rather than ignore it.
Respctfully,
Steve Dise

Steve, Conservapedia has a much smaller project with a much smaller user base than Wikipedia (partially because they drive off many people and block others presumably isn't helping). So their articles are correspondingly sparser and not as well written. On the other hand, if you looked at Wikipedia when it was about as old as Conservapedia is now it was in better shape. I suspect in any event that if a subject isn't highly political then it just doesn't get much attention on Conservapedia which is likely also having an effect.